He asserts a right to power over you here by supporting people that force you and others (i.e. airline/airport operators) to act in a way that they and not you will. You are not doing the same to him.

While you ask simply to be left alone to choose to interact with airport and airline operators as you and they so choose, he is not content to grant you such liberty. He supports, in the name of national security, imposing his will (or that of others with whom he's in agreement) upon you.

It's just a power and money thing. If the situation involved his personally having to make you do what he wills for you to do, without his having the ability to outsource such dirty work to more powerful others and your having the ability to defend yourself from him or them, the two of you would part with just a simple disagreement. Instead, we are left with his asserting a right to power over you, and therefore, a much more serious conflict (especially once we multiply law dawg and his action out over the millions of times his government allies carry this out on others every day).

A bad deal and totally unnecessary, sadly.

Amazing is what you call a post that complains about a system put in place by a party that was just kicked out of office for their incompetancy for setting up megalithic agencies like the TSA and home land security. Instead of complaining to the party trying to clean up the mess try writing the Pres and party who set the mess up in the first place.

So you are of the opinion that if one works for the TSA you should have fewer rights than say the border patrol. Oh, I forgot terrorists are only allowed to arrive by air now. No jumping the border and the sea anymore. Maybe if we stopped awarding security contracts on a no bid basis to companies like Haleburton we could get decent people at decent wages to work for the TSA.

Thanks for the post I just wrote my Democratic senator and said keep up the good work.

No disagreement; he claimed that his power over me was only in force if I broke the law. The reality is that the power is there if I violate an arbitrary and possibly secret set of rules that do not necessarily carry the force of law. That's the difference I was pointing out.

What amazes me is how somebody who does not know me and/or my politics jumps to assumptions so quickly and imo rudely. Please do not determine what my "opinion" is before asking me.

And FYI - as stated in my first post, I have already contacted my congresspeople, Nancy Pelosi's office, and the press over the TSA. No response from anybody.

No wonder I rarely post in this forum. :rolleyes:

Unskilled (to say the least) labor
 

The TSA isn't even qualified to do the job their assigned. Their own "secret shoppers" give them a failing grade. What makes them think that a union would make them any better? Just ask Ford, GM or Chrysler how their union agreements are working out. Unfortunately we can't outsource airport screening to Mexico.

(Most) Unions have run their course. While I agree that there are skilled trades that can probably still merit organization (pilots come to mind), the under-skilled TSA employees need no union. In fact, their status in the ever-growing federal employee payroll is dubious to begin with.

We might as well unionize all the workers of Burger King. Only the results would be better.

I would be willing to pony up a few bucks. The ad should point out the Kabuki security nature of TSA and the overwhelming negatives of allowing unionization.

Care to take a guess which party spearheaded the formation of TSA? Remember Comrade Daschle and his mantra of "You don't professionalize unless you federalize"? I just wish the Republicans and President Bush were not p*$$ies and had opposed this abomination of a bureaucracy that wastes $5 billion annually on a lame dog and pony show.

By the way, Democrats are opposed to real border security, because they think that promising health care benefits to illegals will cement their allegiance. They are probably right.

Here are the rates for advertising in the USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/media_kit/us...irculation.htm

:td: :td: :td: :td: :td: :td: :td: :mad:

There was, and I was absolutely disgusted by it. It compared the TSA to the NYPD and FDNY of 9/11, using imagery of fallen buildings, ruined lives, and unsung heroism. Hundreds of unionized workers died on 9/11 trying to actively save other people's lives. If anything a fraction of the scale of the WTC ever happened at an airport, all the TSA would do is piss in their government-issued pants. Nobody at the TSA is a hero in any sense of the word, and their self-comparison is disgusting and insulting. They are trying to say that because FDNY/NYPD have unions and saved peoples lives on 9/11, the TSA obviously needs a union too. Well the TSA isn't in the same ballpark as police, firefighters, doctors, teachers, and supermarket shelf stockers. The former are all necessary parts of society, while every time the American people get 'too comfortable' the TSA decides to invent a new threat in order to scare people and justify their pitiful existence. Firefighters and police protect and help you WHEN YOU NEED TO BE HELPED. You don't see the fire department banning everything that could potentially start a fire, and the police don't take everything away from you that you could hurt somebody with. Someone needs to place an ad that shows images of garbage dumps, fast food joints, and Wal-Marts, telling the TSA that if they don't like their working conditions, they are free to go work at the other places at which they are qualified.

Full Page $106,400 Mon-Thurs.

Who's with me? Anyone want to get a PayPal setup going?

If I thought it would do an ounce of good I'd pony up right now. The problem is it wouldn't change a thing. What has to happen is for passengers to "unionize", and pick one day in the year when we strike, and no one goes by air. Won't bug TSA, but the airlines lobbyists will scream blood murder at Congress.

Unless you hit them in the wallet, it won't change a thing. But maybe we can get the USA Today to give us space as a public service ad! ^

Just to clarify: TSA employees have always had the right to join unions. The issue is not about unionization. The issue is about collective bargaining on behalf of screeners. That was the one technicality that separated a screener's ability to join a union and that union being able to effectively represent that screener's interest. Every other government employee has those rights; TSA employees do not.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the measure won approval in the Senate. I was convinced that this was just a political showpiece to get some other part of the bill approved and would be conveniently discounted once the debate got heated. Now comes the interesting part: whether or not the President will veto the bill.

For those who need a basic civics review, the bill passed by Congress represents the will of the people. Anytime a president vetoes a bill, he is essentially going against the consolidated will of the people as determined by the public officials who act on their behalf. I'm not saying this is a bad thing or good thing; I'm just saying that this is more than just a check-and-balance argument, and there are political consequences the president has to consider. I would certainly hope that whatever decision is made is one based on some principle as opposed to bruised ego (since the President has threatened to veto such a measure). And it will be interesting to hear the rationale why other government agencies are allowed collective bargaining rights and TSA is not. There is a fairness standard to consider.

As for the love-it-or-leave-it crowd, one of the fundamental principles Americans have is to work a job of their choice free of abuse from their employer and in a hostile-free environment. Much of the morale issues affecting TSA stems from management practices. TSA employees are American citizens, many of us are combat veterans, and we, too, have a right to demand better treatment and protection from management abuses. Quitting is a solution, but that doesn't improve anything other than on an individual and very selfish manner. And I don't fault those who quit rather than go through the process of fighting back. Some folks have other immediate concerns such as feeding a family. However, that doesn't mean that it's the only solution.

I don't know if having the AFGE or other government union will necessarily make things better across the board. What I do know is that the processes TSA has in place: the Ombudsman, the Inspector General, and various civil rights offices simply do not work effectively. In obvious cases of blatant management abuses perhaps, but many of these abuses are subtle rather than blatant.

I'm not sure I would join the AFGE. There's an AFGE representative who shows up at our employee bus stop everyday whom I ignore. Today, I might just listen to what he has to say.

Maybe there is a bright side if TSA is allowed to collectively bargain. Suppose TSA screeners walk out on strike. Would that end the shoe carnival and Freedom Baggie/KHIAI farce? Could replacement screeners be brought up to speed quickly enough to enforce these parts of Kabuki security?

The name at the bottom is AFGE - American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. www.afge.org

It is comparing TSO's to 9/11 first responders and certain other government employees and asks readers to support the McCaskill Amendment to S.4, the 9-11 Commission Recommendations Bill.

True.

In other words, TSA employees have always been as free as every other American to walk out of their jobs. They just didn't have government jackboots agreeing to threaten people who might wish to cease purchasing the labor services of TSA employees who quit offering theirs.

Now it looks like they will though. Congrats.

And of course, this is all about "national security." Not about money.

And as we all know, the AFL-CIO is interested in nothing other than national security.

You act like this racket isn't also a serious political power and revenue windfall for the GOP and many of its supporters as well.

They didn't fail to oppose the TSA because they are "p*$$ies." They failed to oppose it because, like so many other massive liberty-restricting, tax-eating, currency inflating government programs they love, the TSA is great for them.

Stop voting. It's a dumb and destructive action. You're better than that.

You always have the option to give up and just walk out. (What's it like to be a quitter?) Some have no other choice because they have bills to pay, families to feed, etc. However, there are those who are either willing to risk these things or who aren't in a situation where these matters are that critical who will fight back in order to protect a principle of employee rights. I don't have a dawg in this fight, "Dawg." I could go either way or just wait and see what happens. However, my point is that TSA management does abuse its workforce, and some of that unfortunately translates into taking it out on the passengers. Shouldn't happen, but I would be naive to deny that it does.

Cute. It's all about employee rights. TSA and DHS are the ones trying to portray this as a national security issue. Collective bargaining will not impair aviation security. Ronald Reagan pretty much set that straight when he summarily fired the air traffic controllers back in 1981. Each side learned some valuable lessons from that episode, so I truly doubt that both sides would want to go down that path again.

Yes, and people should be at liberty to fire people who do.

I've never said it doesn't nor do I care. Anyone who does not wish to sell his labor services to the TSA does not have to do so. And no one should be forced to pay him even when he ceases to offer his labor services by walking off the job.

Of course it is. The right to have a violent, coercive mob threatening people so as to make them pay you even when you walk off the job.

And thanks for acknowledging that TSA workers care more about their "rights" (or, their making sure Americans are forced to pay them) than about national security. I would never contest this.

Under fair standards? Absolutely. For cause? Yes. Arbitrarily? C'mon now. You can't be serious.


I can see where this is going. In other words, you just want to use this as another opportunity to bash TSA. Fire away, pal. I'm looking for a sound discussion regarding unionization.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK. We've had our little laugh for the day.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

I am. I believe in liberty, not statist coercion.

If you look at my point again, you'll see it's a condemnation of the statist enforcement of "collective bargaining" everywhere.

Under an FAA regulation, TSA can retaliate against employees with total impunity. Unless this lop-sided MSPB decision is appealed and overturned, wronged TSA employees such as whistleblowers have absolutely no protection from wrongful terminations:
http://mspb. gov/decisions/ 2007/mitchell_ ny050235x1. pdf

or

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2331806

or

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...69/detail.html

or

http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2005/pr05_04.htm

or

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIVJPJR91.DTL

and I could go on and on and on......

By the way, federal unions are not allowed to arbitrate pay or work duties. They can only arbitrate things like shift allocation and rotations, grievances, overtime equity, etc.

Pay and policy are set by the Agency.

FYI virtually no one pays those rates. If you plan on more than 5 ads, expect a negotated package.

Just a friendly comment :)

That needs to be fixed bigtime.

I don't work the checkpoint. I am not a TSO. I am a fed LEO.

Nor should they or any other person have such "protection."

If I no longer wish to purchase the labor service you are selling, I should not be forced at gunpoint to do so. Whatever my reasons. Same goes for everyone else. Such behavior leads to all kinds of unnecessary problems.

Why?

I'm in full agreement with you there.

Airlines should be permitted to compete on security and security procedures.

I think you have a misconstrued version of how things are in one respect - the airlines wield FAR more power than you believe. They have huge PACs and lobbying firms. They dictate far more policy than you would think.

For instance, if TSA is so power hungry, then why do they allow most airlines and airports to have their own private security staff check IDs? Why isn't TSA doing that? I mean, if they really want to throw their weight around and have all the power, why do they allow this? Its certainly less efficient (your major standard, according to you) to have two separate entities checking ID that have little or no communication with one another. One-stop shopping would be more efficient and less costly. But that's not the case. Why?

Also, for the record, the airlines were massively glad that TSA took over the most costly aspect of security. They handed that over quickly, because they didn't want to pay for it! Security is a revenue-drainer. It contributes nothing to the bottom line and costs plenty. Its like insurance - you pay the least possible hoping nothing bad will happen.

Any good employee hired to do security would love to be able to take the time necessary to do a thorough job. That time would change, dependent upon the circumstances. Some people warrant more investigation than others. Yet TSA is pressured to handle people as quickly as possible. Where is this pressure coming from? Hmmm, lets see......

C'mon man, the airlines are not victims here. They have the juice to get pretty much whatever they want. And what they want is to not pay for the bulk of security.

So, in essence, you're getting exactly what the business chooses for you to get.

There you go again introducing common sense and logic into this debate. ^

Hm, not exactly. National security positions, generally TS clearance and above, do not have that right.

I know this. Not sure what I said that contradicts this.

Because they haven't gained the political power to do so yet. The airlines have been able to hold them off. Not sure what your argument is here.

Of course. No argument here from me.

Government is for the powerful, to the disadvantage of the less powerful. Always has been, always will be. Many people with the more powerful larger airline firms love having the state force others to pay for this. Many less powerful people wishing to enter the market don't though as such restrictions limit the size of the market and increase barriers to entry.

Government is a racket that benefits its controllers and the people with whom it shares its ill-gotten loot. In this case, many airline execs.

Then why mandate anyone having to pay for or allow the TSA? If it's what the market wants anyway, then no regulations from you are necessary.

I think you know this isn't, in essence, the case though.

Except that it's an illogical statement, of course.

If all airlines and aiport operators would freely choose to have the TSA anyway, then government establishment and protection of it wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Thank you for clearing that up.

You are correct, I would have to break the law.

So there might be some employees that belong to this union? If that's the case, seems like they're lobbying for their members, and that can include newspaper ads. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Most mobs of men won't attack you if you don't break their rules, or, "laws."

They know that having to use such force is costly. They'd rather you just give up your money, time, or whatever it is of yours that they want without having to attack you. But ultimately, if you succeed for long enough at keeping what is yours from them, they will attack you. The lifestyle they desire cannot be sustained with you being left at liberty.

You said that you wished to be able to interact with the business the way you and the business choose. I am saying you already do, the business decided the plan they wanted and off you go.

That they already have the power and choose not to exercise it. Because they don't want the expenditure.

So the less-powerful don't want to enter a market where one of the largest expenditures and operating costs is completely paid for them? That doesn't track.

The state mandates X be done, but then pays for it. What's the problem? Where is the limiting factors?

Of course the market wants security. No reasonable person really believes an airline that starts up with no security will be flown my ma and pa kettle. The only question is - how much and who pays for it?

If the business pays for it then it will more than likely be the balancing act of risk versus cost. How much do we risk losing if we're wrong vs. how much are we paying out every day. This is what we saw pre-9/11 with the security forces in place.

I beg to differ. This is exactly what the airlines wanted.

Then your agency isn't necessary.

Of course, you don't know what the existing airline companies and future entrants to the market would choose to provide.

Or because it would cause a backlash that would jeopardize the power they do have.

Then there's no need for the government to enforce or protect it.

You are arguing that the government is necessary to enforce something every single airline and future airline operator wants anyway. That is just silly.

I am arguing that there is a service that a business does wants to provide but does not want to pay for. If they can find/pawn off/trick/cajole/shoehorn/con into doing it for them, they will. And did.

The fact that its the government doing it is irrelevant. Again its the ACTOR and not the ACT.

Now, if you want to argue the NECESSITY of having travel regulations, that is a viable discussion. The government does require and enforce those. Maybe absent those requirements the business wouldn't provide them. But the PROVIDER of the service is irrelevant for our discussion.

In essence, do we need any kind of security at all in civilian aviation? Should businesses be allowed to provide as much or as little security as they wish? That's legit.

But, if we accept that such regulations are valid, then its just a question of who pays for it, the business or Other Entity.

Some do, some don't. Some did, some didn't. Some might, some might not.

It's not irrelevant because someone else doing it could be pushed out of the way by new entrants not wanting the service, airlines that change their minds, etc.

Government force is necessary for the survival of the TSA solely because some airlines or future airline operators either don't now or in the future might not want the TSA.